Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DMCA bad for Apple Users

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the not-to-mention-everyone-else dept.

Apple 304

Aguazul writes "TidBITS has published a really strong article on the DMCA and on how this is bad for Apple users, with some good links and suggestions for action. The author, Adam Engst, is regularly voted the most influential person in the Mac world outside of Apple, so this is a serious wake-up call to Apple users everywhere."

cancel ×

304 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

apple (-1)

count_sporkula (446625) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705889)

snhapple

Calling for a serious Apple user (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705982)

Man, I'd like nothing better than a hot S&M session with an Apple user.

You'd make me lick your boots, thighs and finally suck that sweet, sweet, sweet cock until you were thoroughly satisfied. Then you'd ride my back and whip my ass with a horse crop until it was all red and bleeding. You'd fuck my sore ass mercilessly with your monster 9" cock while pulling my hair. Finally you'd give me permission to cum if I licked the cum off the floor and the shit off your cock.

Here's some lyrics for ya (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706247)

Fuck yeah!

DMCA is for the working class,
pissed off, real man.
Not some Apple using faggot with
his boss's dick up his ass.

I'm 30lbs overweight,
with the fuckin' hairiest ass crack
this side of a gorilla.
I've got a 10 inch bone that
wont quit. My wife loves it, and
so does yours.

I jackhammer streets all day,
and jackhammer cunt all night.

Re:Here's some lyrics for ya (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706308)

Hey, nice lyrics.

Did you write them? Can my band [halfshellheroes.com] use them?

shit buzz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705899)

for the dmca

money means power (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705903)

The content-production companies have the money, so they therefore have the power over government. We're going to get Digital Rights Management, Ecrypted CPUs, Pallidium, DMCA and the like whether we like it or not. This means Apple can either comply, or go out of business.

Re:money means power (5, Interesting)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706027)

You know, the DMCA and DRM are two quite different beasts, and you don't have to agree with one to agree to the other.

I have severe issues with the current incarnation of the DMCA. It's broken, it can go after that most sancrosanct of creatures, the software engineer, and it gives ridiculously strong legal protections. It's also way to abusable for things that it wasn't intended to cover, like MS using it to keep (non content-related) protocols closed. Having the government, which I pay money to, enforce laws that prevent me from writing software is objectionable to me.

OTOH, I think that DRM is a great idea. Fun, even. The satellite TV wars are, I think, one of the neatest things going. The company engineers manage to make it annoying enough that your average Joe is willing to just pay for his TV. Hackers are having a fun time competing with the engineers. It's a technical war at its finest. If the company engineers eventually come out on top, more power to them. They fought the good fight and won. Just as I support not artifically restricting the rights of someone to write copy protection bypassing software, I support the right of the TV engineers to write whatever protection software they want. This has always been the case, ranging from the days of colored watermarks to screw up Xeroxing to now.

But, you might think, digital copy protection is harder to get by than analog copy protection? Tough. It's also much easier to *copy* digital information en masse than it is to Xerox something a thousand times.

I'd like the DMCA gone, but that doesn't mean that DRM should go away.

Re:money means power (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706210)

The DMCA only applies in cases where the content protection is "effective".
But if the content protection is effective, then these companies don't need any legal help.
Therefore we don't need the DMCA.
Q.E.D.

Re:money means power (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706553)

Why do TV Engineers get the right to limit the end users ability to record something, which is covered under the Home Fair Use Act?

I knew this would happen! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706112)

BSD is dying
|
|
V
Apple chooses to use BSD
|
|
V
Apple is dying

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Re:I knew this would happen! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706213)

BSD is dying
|
NeXT backs BSD technology
|
NeXT dies
|
Apple backs NeXT technology, and pays money for it.
|
Apple is dying

Re:money means power (-1, Troll)

BurKaZoiD (611246) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706121)

We're going to get Digital Rights Management, Ecrypted CPUs, Pallidium, DMCA and the like whether we like it or not.

WTF is this "we" shit you're talking about? What are they going to do? Come TAKE your money out of your wallet and GIVE you all of these eletronically controlled computing systems without you having anything to say about it? Are you going to tell me that you have no choice in what you buy? You're going to buy what is force-fed to you because that's all there is?!? The simple solution is not to buy the goddamn thing. A computer may be central to my work, but it most certainly is NOT central to my life. And for anyone that it is, you have either too much free time, or not enough life. Unplug and go read a book for Chrissake's.

The fact of the matter is that DRM and DMCA is a failure. Any new protection scheme will be broken inside of a week, so who is it really stopping?

Voting with money does not work (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706160)

Give me an example when "vote with your money" has ever worked.

Thought so.

Consumers cannot vote with their money because the elections are rigged by false advertising. How many people, for instance, know about the effects of DRM and DMCA? How many of those few know that those laws are, in fact, bad for the customer? Ironically the coming DMCA of the European Union is named and openly hyped as a "consumers' right bill". Yeah, it's about consumers' rights alright. Taking them away, that is.

Re:Voting with money does not work (-1, Flamebait)

BurKaZoiD (611246) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706193)

I wasn't talking about the populace at large, you fucktard. I was talking about a single person. You don't like it? Don't buy it. I know I won't.

Re:money means power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706578)

It is going to happen to books too. Content is content after all.

The biggest problem is not control of what content the consumer can consume, but what content the creator can create.

Granted, both are hugh problems.

A Nony Mouse.

Proof positive (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705908)

Straight men don't use Macs.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,56409,00.ht ml

SP!

Re:Proof positive (2, Funny)

GTsquirrel42 (624871) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705935)

<sarcasm>Wow, incredible! Thank you for showing me the light. I'm sure that was the most reasonable argument I've ever seen. Gee, and I though I was straight all along; I'm glad you proved me wrong.</sarcasm>

Re:Proof positive (1)

Lebannen (626462) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705977)

Hey, that's nothing. My *girlfriend* thought I was straight. Ah well.

Re:Proof positive (4, Interesting)

overunderunderdone (521462) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706061)

Straight men don't use Macs.

Umm... The link you posted seems to suggest otherwise. Just look at the pictures [wired.com] . The fact that you appeared to have missed this seems to suggest that YOU are not a straight man.

Re:Proof positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706103)

What the heck is your problem?

The computer I use doesn't have anything to do with my sexual orientation, so why don't you go home and suck salt!

YET ANOTHER QUALITY STORY (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705909)

..rejected by Taco lamer and brought to you by the hacker underground.

News.com is reporting [com.com] that IBM has won a $290 million contract with the federal government to build what are expected to be the world's two fastest supercomputers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The other machine, the Linux powered [com.com] Blue Gene/L will be 10 times faster than the current #1 [top500.org] , NEC's Earth Simulator with a speed of 360 teraflops, according to IBM.

404? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705911)

What was going on a minute ago? When I first clicked on "read more", I got "404 not found"? the hell?

Not quite the case in full (4, Insightful)

Dr Thrustgood (625498) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705913)

Whilst the DMCA is undoubtedly bad, it's not just about Apple users - it's bad in full. Bad bad bad, bad to the teeth, bad bad bad bad bad bad!

Can't we all get together on this just for once?

Re:Not quite the case in full (4, Interesting)

G-funk (22712) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706401)

Goddammit, why can't we get together and do something about this? Why don't we geeks create some infrastructure where people can create, review, rate, and sell content at a fair price? No, geeks can't just come out and do something that will affect joe sixpack and his ??AA overlords, but why not create the infrastructure for ourselves, and use it fairly, let joe sixpack join if he wants. Every indy artist has one or two geek friends.... if you build it, they will come.

poor apple users will have to wake up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705920)

and smell the digital millenium copyright act

Re:poor apple users will have to wake up (2)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706188)

and smell the digital millenium copyright act

Oh, is that what that stench is?

Re:poor apple users will have to wake up (1)

UncleRage (515550) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706411)

...and, of course, name five of their Macintosh using friends, family or colleagues.

of course (4, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705925)

Apple is known as *the* creative people's platform, look at how many sound engineers use Logic or ProTools on Mac, enumerate Avid's video users, Photoshop's/MacOS hardcore DTP'ists...
Now if they can't use some existing copyrighted work in private to flex their creative muscles, they won't be creative anymore...

(I wrote "is known as", it doesn't mean I actually endorse this vision)

Re:of course (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706033)

Apple is known as *the* creative people's platform, look at how many sound engineers use Logic or ProTools on Mac, enumerate Avid's video users, Photoshop's/MacOS hardcore DTP'ists...

And... what's the conclusion when it is also known that creative people tend to be gay more than us more normal people? Uhhuh. Got it right. Apple users are gay.

Re:of course (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706066)

Trolls aside, but as a queer I tend to think that the "gayness" of the art scene is mostly a result of there being intelligent and open-minded people who aren't afraid to experiment with their sexuality. Still that doesn't make them gay and I'd say there are no more of us real queers in the art scene than in any other profession.

Re:of course (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706127)

aren't afraid to experiment with their sexuality

Ah... so now you're saying that being gay is in fact a choice? But what happened to the "born gay" nonsense that you freaks like to quote whenever confronted by someone with enough common sense that you are very very sick people.

Re:of course (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706145)

Apple is known as *the* creative people's platform
Yeah, I hear the Goatse Man uses a Mac.

Re:of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706294)

http://homepage.mac.com/celkjer/.Movies/bbaggins.m ov

Eh gad, the things Mac users are watching these days!

Re:of course (0)

Pussy Is Money (527357) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706537)

Correction: creative sheeple's platform

apple is going down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705934)

faster than Taco on RMS

Mod parent up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706084)

That is the most insightful comment in this story.

Down ALREADY? (-1, Offtopic)

ez_TAB (235649) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705957)

Of course it's only 6:30am west coast time....

Re:Down ALREADY? (0, Troll)

Davoid (5734) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706007)

What do you expect?... it runs on MacOS.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u =off&mod e_w=on&site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tidbits.com%2F&submit =Examine

Re:Down ALREADY? (1)

djward (251728) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706097)

So does this [apple.com] .

Re:Down ALREADY? (3, Insightful)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706302)

What do you expect?... it runs on MacOS.

It doesn't surprise me at all that it would go down fast under a vigorous slashdotting, but not because it's run on Macs but because it's run about Macs.

Servers cost money. So anyone building a website will try to use the minimum server power they can get away with. Microsoft will run massive banks of servers because they expect lots of people to connect to them for security patches, bug fixes, security patches, product information, bug fixes, technical support, and security patches.

So here's TidBITS, a site run for the Apple community (which is admittedly small), which only expects traffic from those people who use and appreciate Apples. So they run it on just a few machines. They normally only need one or two.

But then they posted a general interest story, someone told Slashdot about it, and boom! Instant DoS Attack! Find me a one-machine server that has that kind of instant scalability, and I'll buy one.

Re:Down ALREADY? (1)

Davoid (5734) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706428)

Yep... you are right. Cheap shot. It did go down awfully fast tho'

/.ed already (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4705958)

Wow, fastest slashdotting I've ever witnessed.

And no cache yet.

It's a conspiracy (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705972)

Hmmm, the link is dead. *Somebody* must not want us to see it...

DMCA works for "The Little Guy?" (5, Insightful)

Shuh (13578) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705980)

One has to wonder: if you produce something on your Mac, are you going to be able to tap into all that DMCA pay-as-you-play goodness, or are you going to need a DRM-authorship liscense to distribute your wares that is only affordable to the largest media companies? Something to think about...

Re:DMCA works for "The Little Guy?" (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705999)

I'll say it this way... there is no consumer device in existance that will give you a DVD with CSS protections like the kind Hollywood gets to use.

Re:DMCA works for "The Little Guy?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706034)

You're not saying anything except that there's not a big enough consumer market for such a device to make it worthwhile for companies to develop. You can't go to Best Buy and pick up a radio tower, either.

Re:DMCA works for "The Little Guy?" (1)

jcostantino (585892) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706090)

They don't sell FCC licenses either... I could build a FM broadcast unit for next to nothing and broadcast illegally until the Feds came for me. It's not about equipment, it's the fact that consumers don't have access to the software for their own protection.

Re:DMCA works for "The Little Guy?" (4, Informative)

alexburke (119254) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706340)

I'll say it this way... there is no consumer device in existance that will give you a DVD with CSS protections like the kind Hollywood gets to use.


Wrong. [pioneer.co.jp] They're not cheap (and nor are the blanks), so it's hardly a "consumer-grade" unit, but there are no restrictions on purchasing or ownership, so anyone can own one.

Link Completely Slashdotted . . . . (0, Offtopic)

mofu (609230) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705992)

In just 14 posts . . . .

True story... (4, Interesting)

aslagle (441969) | more than 11 years ago | (#4705995)

A friend of mine owns a Mac, which he bought with a CD-R drive.

Another buddy was being driven to frustration trying to edit digital video on his PC. So, my Mac friend hauls his Mac over, and they go out and buy iDVD.

Turns out that Apple has put a firmware check in the software. When you launch it, iDVD checks for an Apple DVD player, and if it doesn't find one, doesn't load.

"Ah!" My friend says, "I'll just buy a DVD burner...I wanted one anyway!"

But Apple won't sell you a bare drive. If you want a DVD burner, you have to buy a whole new Mac.

An enterprising man made software that would sit between iDVD and a 'regular' DVD burner, and make iDVD think it was an Apple drive. Apple threatened him under the DMCA, and got him to remove his software from the market.

Re:True story... (4, Informative)

mcwetboy (561083) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706018)

Since you can't buy iDVD separately (i.e., without a Mac equipped with an internal DVD burner), I call bullshit on this "true" story.

Re:True story... (3, Informative)

clifyt (11768) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706151)

Ummm...I've always had distain for folks that 'call bullshit' on things anyways so I'll respond.

http://www.apple.com/idvd/upgrade/

Yeah the page says 'Upgrade' but its the full application...I bought it here and was hoping to use it on my iBook and was a little miffed when it didn't work as well, but I also knew they said it wouldn't work as its spelled out in the system requirements (I was hoping the hack would allow me to edit the stuff and then burn it to my G4 later).

clif

Re:True story... (2, Insightful)

mcwetboy (561083) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706323)

Try buying an upgrade version of Office, Windows or Photoshop to save money without having an earlier version installed. Are you going to be miffed if that doesn't work either? It's not the company's fault if you try to save money by trying to get around their requirements and it doesn't work.

Re:True story... (1)

?erosion (62476) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706395)

Quoting the original poster:

"Yeah the page says 'Upgrade' but its the full application...I"

This is important. According to this statement, the application will install and function regardless of whether a previous version is present. If you're going to flame, at least read the original post.

Re:True story... (1)

mcwetboy (561083) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706461)

I did read, I'm not flaming (at least I don't think I am -- disagreeing != flaming), and I somehow suspect that iDVD isn't the only "upgrade" that contains the full application -- which was my point.

Re:True story... (5, Informative)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706504)

From the Apple wb page for getting the 2.1 upgrade:
Check the minimum system requirements:
iDVD 2.0 or later.
Mac OS X, v10.1.3 or later.
Any Power Macintosh G4, G4 iMac, or eMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive).
Minimum of 256MB of RAM installed with 384MB recommended.


From the FAQ:
Can I use iDVD 2 with other CD-R or DVD-R drives?
No. iDVD 2 is designed to work only with the Apple SuperDrive available on certain configurations of iMac and Power Mac G4 computers.


It's not their fault you didn't read the information clearly presented before you bought it.

You can buy an iDVD 2.1 upgrade (1)

Hanul (533254) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706178)

$19.95 at the Apple store. Description says explicitly that the software requires an built-in Apple SuperDrive.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects /A ppleStore.woa/164/wo/GIySX0RXpB1w4aJX2g/1.3.0.3.27 .8.3.11.13.0

Re:True story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706030)

Who was he? I'll sell his software and pay him royalties. Fuck Apple - they can't pull that DMCA shit in my country.

Re:True story... (1)

cacav (567890) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706041)

Actually, I read about some manufacturer of an external Firewire DVD-RW drive that made a piece of software for the Mac that would hack iDVD so that it would work with their drive.

It lasted until Apple found out and told them to stop altering their software. I can't recall the manufacturer, but I think I read about it in a MacWorld article last month.

The Real Story (5, Informative)

Melantha_Bacchae (232402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706295)

cacav wrote:

> Actually, I read about some manufacturer of an
> external Firewire DVD-RW drive that made a piece
> of software for the Mac that would hack iDVD so
> that it would work with their drive.
>
> It lasted until Apple found out and told them to
> stop altering their software. I can't recall the
> manufacturer, but I think I read about it in a
> MacWorld article last month.

The manufacturer was Other World Computing, and you have related the original version of the story (which broke around August 12th) accurately. In that version, Other World Computing claimed Apple had *requested* that they drop it because it violated the iDVD license, and OWC had complied to preserve their good relationship with Apple.

There was *no* mention of the DMCA, and no need to invoke it as Apple's iDVD license is quite clear.

The DMCA accusation came weeks later and was only based on a quote from Other World Computing's president. There was no quote from any document they received from Apple, no posting of any document as proof, and no confirmation from Apple.

My personal impression was that the DMCA accusation was an afterthought on the part of OWC's president to make Apple look bad. If Apple really used the DMCA, I want to see more proof than the word of someone with an axe to grind.

Chief Tsujimori: "I won't let you get away. I will never let you escape."
Godzilla elegantly lifts his tail skyward to give her the "finger", crashes it down on the water, and submerges.
"Godzilla X Megagiras", 2000

Re:True story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706054)

So? Is it somehow surprising that they're trying to make money? If you don't like it then don't buy their software and hardware.

There's a very legitimate reason for this. (3, Informative)

1stmammaltowearpants (514509) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706092)

First of all, you can't buy iDVD separately, so your friend was probably pirating to begin with.

That said, Apple has to pay a licensing fee for for the technology in iDVD and that fee is included in the purchase of the computer (y'know, those overpriced ones?).

Re:True story... (4, Insightful)

hype7 (239530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706115)

"Ah!" My friend says, "I'll just buy a DVD burner...I wanted one anyway!"


But Apple won't sell you a bare drive. If you want a DVD burner, you have to buy a whole new Mac.

An enterprising man made software that would sit between iDVD and a 'regular' DVD burner, and make iDVD think it was an Apple drive. Apple threatened him under the DMCA, and got him to remove his software from the market.


That's called "bending the truth". For your friend to have had a possession of iDVD without having purchased a mac with a DVD burner in built, he must have pirated the software.

Apple's application of the DMCA wasn't because he had modified the software. It was because his need to modify the software arose only due to pirating iDVD.

Apple's application of the law in this instance is entirely defendable.

-- james

Re:True story... (3, Insightful)

halftrack (454203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706192)

This is sort of besides your point, but why on earth couldn't he get the iDVD (legally (I don't support piracy)) for his excisting mac and buy a DVD burner? MS is a convicted monopolistic force, but I think we ought to be glad Apple is small compared to MS. They controll - as proved by this post - the users choise of hardware and software and dictate unfair (though legal) policies on consumers.

To keep this slightly on-topic, I think it's great that Apple is taking a stand (haven't read the article, /.ed), but it's probably not because it's 'the right thing to do.' They probably just find it a profitable view (or they're building market share.)

There are no nice companies. IBM might support Linux and play by the rules, but their just looking after their market share.

Re:True story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706229)

This is sort of besides your point, but why on earth couldn't he get the iDVD (legally (I don't support piracy)) for his excisting mac and buy a DVD burner? MS is a convicted monopolistic force, but I think we ought to be glad Apple is small compared to MS. They controll - as proved by this post - the users choise of hardware and software and dictate unfair (though legal) policies on consumers.


Why does Apple's software need to support other people's hardware?


I tried to use this firmware update for my Rio on my Sony MP3 palyer and it din't work... Rio is therefore a horrid monopoly!


Seriously, exaggeration aside APple has no real responsability to support hardware they don't sell. They've done a pretty good compatability list for their CD burning software, but then again CD burning should hopefully be a pretty mature technology by now.

Why does Apple's software need to support other pe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706535)

Well, it does not *need* to, but if someone else wants to make Apple's software interoperate with other systems, that sounds like an interesting case of legitimate reverse engineering.

Apple is a hardware company. Software is just a marketing tool to help them sell more hardware.

Re:True story... (5, Insightful)

hype7 (239530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706266)

This is sort of besides your point, but why on earth couldn't he get the iDVD (legally (I don't support piracy)) for his excisting mac and buy a DVD burner? MS is a convicted monopolistic force, but I think we ought to be glad Apple is small compared to MS. They controll - as proved by this post - the users choise of hardware and software and dictate unfair (though legal) policies on consumers.


To be perfectly honest, this is the real reason that they asked the update to be pulled. Kinda comes back to Apple's mantra - if it can't work reliably, it can't work. They didn't want iDVD etc out there with a whole lot of untested DVD burners.

It was pulled after a whole lot of support issues cropped up on the Apple support website. Which is fair enough.

-- james

Re:True story... (5, Informative)

Nomad7674 (453223) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706230)

That's called "bending the truth". For your friend to have had a possession of iDVD without having purchased a mac with a DVD burner in built, he must have pirated the software.

Actually, this is not necesarily true. My brother just bought one of the new 1 GHz TiBooks without a DVD-R drive and it came included with iDVD. It was apparently just cheaper to have one standard build of the software for the 1 GHz TiBooks. Legal copy, no DVD-R.

Re:True story... (4, Insightful)

lemkebeth (568887) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706277)

Quite true.

The thing is the software does not support other drives. If another manufacter wants to sell a DVD burner then they have to either do one of two things if they want it to work with Macs.

1. Write their own
2. License someone else (even iDVD). No one has obtained a license to bundle iDVD therefore it is not sold or supported to work with it.

Re:True story... (1)

More Trouble (211162) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706128)

So, my Mac friend hauls his Mac over, and they go out and buy iDVD.

Really? Where did they "buy" iDVD? I have a friend who steals shit. May this is the same guy?

:w

WTF (1)

?erosion (62476) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706551)

What is the problem here? Why is this so controversial? Chill out people. The copy is legit. Are you so ready to take the moral high ground that you assume this guy's a criminal?

So you don't like piracy. We are all very happy to hear that. Guess what, though? This isn't a case of pirated software. So bugger off!

Re:True story... (2, Insightful)

sharrestom (531929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706142)

Actually, you can buy, as I did, an upgrade copy of iDVD2 for $19.95, (which is actually the full version), and install an aftermarket DVR-A04, which is recognized by iDVD. iDVD does not recognize an external DVD drive, and will not launch if a internal drive is not found. The software patch for an external drive, as I recall, was created by one of the fellows at Small Dog Electronics, who heeded Apples warning, and stopped providing said software. This may or may not be about DCMA, but Apple chose to portray it as such, as the story goes.

Re:True story... (2)

Mr_Dyqik (156524) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706215)

So you buy an upgrade version with (I assume) a licence that requires you to own a copy of iDVD1. Just because you paid for the upgrade doesn't mean you have a licence to use the software if you don't have the first version.

Re:True story... (3, Insightful)

lemkebeth (568887) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706314)

It was Other World Computing (OWC) not Small Dog.

Small Dog knows better.

OWC has done some stupid things in the past.

FUD (2, Informative)

splateagle (557203) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706152)

before FUDing first check your facts: iDVD is a *FREE DOWNLOAD* and like all the other iApps it explicitly lists it's system requirements in the download page: (see http://www.apple.com/idvd/download)

as for support for third party DVD burners, your "friend" (assuming they exist) could have bought DVD Studio Pro, Apple's retail product for driving such devices.

Apple didn't hammer the guy over the iDVD hack because he was on the side of the little guy, but because his software was killing their sales by enabling users of a freebe iApp to get the same functionality they're expected to pay for from the retail apps.

Re:FUD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706198)

Apple didn't hammer the guy over the iDVD hack because he was on the side of the little guy, but because his software was killing their sales by enabling users of a freebe iApp to get the same functionality they're expected to pay for from the retail apps.

So, in your opinion Apple had a "right to profit"?

How is the free markets supposed to work if you cannot sell a competing product with the same functionality at a reduced price?

Re:FUD (4, Informative)

benh57 (525452) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706234)

Totally wrong. iDVD is *NOT* a free download. That's just a small iDVD 2.1 updater. See the system requirements:

iDVD 2.0 or later. Mac OS X, v10.1.3 or later. Any Power Macintosh G4, G4 iMac, or eMac equipped with a built-in Apple SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW drive). Minimum of 256MB of RAM installed with 384MB recommended.

The iDVD DVD (it comes on DVD) has well over a gig of data on it, and you will only find it for download on warez servers.

Re:True story... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706337)

Problem #1: iDVD issues.
You can't buy iDVD without buying a new Mac either. So your friend probably pirated iDVD.

Apple sells Macs. That's how they make money. As an incentive to buy a high-end Mac, Apple throws iDVD in as a free pack-in with systems that have a DVD burner. Apple doesn't include iDVD with every Mac, just the ones with DVD burners. iDVD(unlike the rest of the i-apps) is not free. Apple didn't invest their money in developing iDVD just to have a thousand other companies give it away with DVD drives that take sales away from Apple's bottom line.

If you want a DVD burner, get one from Pioneer($400). If you want encoding software, Apple is more than happy to sell you DVD Studio Pro, which works with any DVD burner($1000). If you want DVD burning software, Roxio has a kickin' version of Toast 5($100). Just don't expect to get freebies when you haven't paid your dues. The above solution will only cost you $1500. A new Mac with DVD burning capability can cost as little as $1000(check ebay [ebay.com] or smalldog [smalldog.com] for an old G4/733 system with a SuperDrive).

Problem #2: Editing video.
You don't need iDVD to edit digital video.

What you really needed was iMovie, which is included for free with every Mac. It's also available for download from Apple.

Then you can burn VCD's with Toast or dump the video back to the PC and burn with whatever PC burning software you like.

Problem #3: Replacement parts.
Apple sells replacement parts, including SuperDrives.

If you wanted one that badly, and wanted it to work with your questionable copy of iDVD, then you should've gotten a "replacement" SuperDrive.

Of course, this wouldn't be cheap, but at least it would work. And you'd have to pay Apple for their product. What a concept.

Problem #4: Entitlement.
You assume Apple owes you something. They don't.

Apple makes the whole widget. If it breaks, get a replacement part. If you just want to upgrade, well, go buy a new widget. It's their business, and it seems to pay rather well. Get over it. They don't owe you a damn thing. Especially not when you're expecting them to give their livelihood away for free.

Problem #5: The DMCA.
The DMCA is a problem.

Of course, in this instance, the DMCA was doing exactly what it was supposed to do - protect a copyrighted work. Software is a copyrighted work, iDVD included. If Apple(who owns the copyright) says that you can't use it that way, then you can't use it that way! It's their decision. There was a validity check in the software. To bypass that without permission from the copyright holder is wrong. (This applies to DVDs too, since you can make a bit-for-bit copy as a backup, and you can still use it on your PC. You can even make a disk image. You just can't break CSS.)

The End...
I'm sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but it's rather irritating to see all these jackals leeching off of one of the few companies that's actually trying to do something right(or at least different). Support them with your dollars if you want to use their product. If you don't want to pay, don't use it.

Matt

Re:True story... [Perhaps not exactly True] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706599)

Apple does NOT sell iDVD, they include it for free with Macs they sell that have an internal DVD writer. You an purchase an upgrade to the software but not the software itself.

Apple wrote the software. They can determine the terms under which it's provided, not unlike the GPL and similar licenses. Other vendors do sell such software that you can run on a Mac with a variety of DVD writers.

What's the problem?

All Wintel need to tell consumers is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706003)


Macs are broken, or otherwise don't work well because they don't have DM. Keeping the public confised is importent in keeping them your customers, if you have crap that is.

Re:All Wintel need to tell consumers is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706022)

Because they don't have deathmatch? but they do have co-op and vs. modes, at least.

Duh. (1)

pigpen_ (56028) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706010)

The DMCA is bad, period. Not just for Apple users, but for all citizens. It restricts the public domain, and our fair-use privileges.

All of us (2, Interesting)

Inf0phreak (627499) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706016)

Well, considering how DMCA is bad for everyone, I can't really see it as a surprise that you would come to the conclusion that it is bad for Apple users as well. ${x | x \mathrm{is an Apple user}} \in P(everyone)$

Article (4, Informative)

Christopher_G_Lewis (260977) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706031)

The Evil That Is the DMCA

by Adam C. Engst <ace@tidbits.com [mailto] >

Much has been written about what's wrong with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). After all, it's been used to jail programmers, threaten professors, and censor publications, and because of it, foreign scientists have avoided traveling to the U.S. and prominent researchers have withheld their work. In a white paper about the unintended consequences of the DMCA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the DMCA chills free expression and scientific research, jeopardizes fair use, and impedes competition and innovation. In short, this is a law that only the companies who paid for it could love.

<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_conseq uences.html [eff.org] >
<http://www.educause.edu/issues/dmca.html [educause.edu] >
<http://anti-dmca.org/ [anti-dmca.org] >

Just who are we talking about here? Primarily the large movie studios and record labels, who own the copyrights on vast quantities of content and who have been working with one another and via their industry associations, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), to control how we are allowed to interact with that content. Their unity of purpose and storm-trooper tactics have led some to dub them the Content Cartel.

<http://www.riaa.org/ [riaa.org] >
<http://www.mpaa.org/ [mpaa.org] >

However, the DMCA is merely one link in a chain that's being used by the Content Cartel and many others to restrict access to the shared cultural heritage of the world, and in the process, extract money from our pockets, stifle innovation and competition, and protect entrenched interests.

DMCA and Trusted Systems -- I recently attended a talk by Professor Tarleton Gillespie <tlg28@cornell.edu [mailto] > of Cornell University in which he made a compelling argument for how the Content Cartel is using the legal force of the DMCA to direct us down a path where content cannot exist outside of a trusted system, which is a set of hardware, software, and file formats that all agree on what the user is allowed to do with a piece of content. (The trust here is between the pieces of the system, because the content owners don't trust their customers at all.) The trusted system's goals are simple - to eliminate all unauthorized uses and create a situation where we pay more for the content we consume.

A trusted system could prevent you not only from copying a CD or DVD, but also from listening to the CD more than a certain number of times in a day or skipping commercials on a DVD or on broadcast television. Along with requiring us to buy new hardware to play such content and buy new protected versions of the content we already own, a trusted system could have another ill effect. That's because it could prevent us from working with content we would create, using tools such as those Apple kindly provides in iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, and iPhoto. In the worst case scenario, Apple could lose not just the Mac's current digital media advantage in the marketplace, but the ability to work with digital media at all. See Cory Doctorow's article on the broadcast flag in TidBITS-642 [slashdot.org] for more on this disturbing possibility.

< http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06901 [tidbits.com] >

Professor Gillespie illustrated how this could happen with a discussion of the awkwardly named Content Scramble System (CSS), used to prevent people from copying DVDs, and the DeCSS software created by a Norwegian teenager with help from others on the Internet to build a Linux DVD player.

(A brief aside: DeCSS violates the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, which ban devices or services that are designed primarily to circumvent copy prevention technologies, that have only limited commercially significant purpose other than circumvention, or that are marketed for circumvention. The DMCA was signed into law in large part to bring the U.S. into compliance with a pair of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties that require anti-circumvention protections in the copyright law of signatory nations. You might think Norway would be included among the nations signing these WIPO treaties, but in fact, only 37 countries have signed on, including the U.S. and Japan, along with the likes of Kyrgyzstan, Gabon, and Paraguay. We're not talking about full international support here, especially in contrast to the 149 signatories to the more general and long-standing Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.)

<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/wct/ [wipo.int] >
<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/berne/ [wipo.int] >

In particular, Professor Gillespie focused on three defenses used in the court case filed against Eric Corley, publisher of the hacker magazine 2600, by eight movie studios to prevent 2600 from publishing the DeCSS software. Although Eric Corley didn't create DeCSS, he made it available on the 2600 Web site. His lawyers' defenses focused on ways DeCSS might escape the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA, which was the law under which the case was being tried.

Let's look at these defenses, all of which the court eventually dismissed in ruling for the movie studios and enjoining 2600 magazine from posting the DeCSS code. A subsequent appeal also failed, and the defendants chose not to appeal again to the Supreme Court (probably a wise move - this particular case struck me as fairly weak).

<http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/2000 0830_ny_amended_opinion.pdf [eff.org] >
<http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/200111 28_ny_appeal_decision.html [eff.org] >

Create a Linux Player -- The primary defense that Eric Corley's legal team, funded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), advanced was that CSS was reverse engineered and DeCSS written to further the development of a DVD player for Linux, which allegedly had no way of playing DVDs at the time (four players are available now; see the Linux Journal review linked below for details). Unfortunately, the judge deemed the defense utterly irrelevant because the DMCA offers no relief based on motivation. In short, if a technology violates the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, the purpose for which that technology was created simply doesn't matter. The judge also wasn't impressed with the fact that DeCSS is actually a Windows program, so although it could be argued that it was a necessary step in the creation of a Linux DVD player, it's a weak argument.

<http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=564 4 [linuxjournal.com] >

The obstacle that actually lies in the way of creating a DVD player is the lack of a key to decrypt the CSS encryption used on DVDs. The only way to come by such a key is to sign a contract licensing CSS from the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA), a group made up of companies representing the movie studios, consumer electronics companies, and the computer industry. At $15,500, the licensing cost is not usurious, but the contract effectively prevents individuals and small organizations from licensing CSS. For instance, in the event of a material breach of contract, the licensee is liable for $1 million, and damages can grow to a maximum of $8 million. In addition, the contract prevents licensees from reverse engineering CSS or working in any way counter to the goal of CSS's protection of DVDs.

Put simply, the CSS license is the sort of thing only large companies can reasonably sign, so it's clear that the effect of the DVD CCA contract is to keep newcomers out of the cozy little club. Perhaps that wasn't a likely concern before the age of the Internet, but the rise of Linux and the open source movement shows that small, informal groups organized over the Internet can produce software that threatens the largest of companies.

The end result here is that innovation is stifled. Companies that license CSS cannot, even if they wanted to, produce products that consumers might like to buy, such as DVD recorders that could copy a DVD. That keeps new companies, niche players, or even independent programmers from competing with the consumer electronics giants with innovative features that in any way run afoul of CSS. So although the consumer electronics companies might not have minded consumers copying DVDs, since they would sell the equipment to make that happen, it's worthwhile for them to abide by CSS to eliminates potential competition.

Equally as problematic is that the CSS license's numerous requirements force the consumer electronics firms to be technologically responsible for regulating our movie viewing and copying behaviors for the studios. Signing this draconian contract is an all-or-nothing deal, so the movie studios have cleverly managed to pass off the dirty work of technological regulation on everyone else (they just produce the content; the DVD and player manufacturers must implement CSS). It's a big step toward a trusted system in which all the parties are bound by the CSS contract.

(As an aside, another effect of the CSS contracts is also to move the entire issue from the world of copyright law, where there is at least some presumption of needing to benefit the public, into the world of contract law, which doesn't give a damn about the public good. If this continues to the logical extreme, the concept of copyright, and unauthorized access to any content, could be locked up forever in simple contracts that lie underneath a trusted system's technologies, all backed up by the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.)

Perform Encryption Research -- Another defense that Eric Corley's lawyers put forth was that DeCSS was created as research into the CSS encryption method, since the DMCA does allow copy-prevention technologies to be circumvented for encryption research. However, the DMCA specifically requires that the encrypted copy be obtained lawfully and that the person performing the research make a good faith effort to obtain authorization in advance. In addition, the decryption tools from such research may be shared only with collaborators for good faith research purposes - in other words, distributing these tools publicly isn't kosher.

Note the words good faith above. In determining whether encryption research is good faith, the judge said the court must determine whether the results are disseminated in a way that advances the state of knowledge of encryption technology, whether the person is engaged in legitimate study of work in encryption, and whether the results are communicated to the copyright owner in a timely fashion. Deciding that none of these tests were true of Eric Corley, the judge dismissed out of hand the claims that DeCSS had protection under the encryption research exception to the DMCA.

Looking past the specifics of this case, consider the ways in which encryption research is considered to be in good faith. You must be a legitimate researcher, have a goal of advancing the state of knowledge, and have at least made an effort to get authorization from the copyright owner. Now think about how these requirements completely disenfranchise the interested individuals and the Internet technical geek community. What does it take to be considered a legitimate researcher - a white coat, thick glasses, and a job with a university, corporation, or government body?

What we're seeing here is how the DMCA in essence props up the status quo, denying that legitimate research could be done outside the halls of academia or a company's R&D department. Left on the outside are the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers... oh hell, go read the rest of Here's to the crazy ones from Apple's Think Different ad campaign for yourself. Whether we're talking about Apple's target audience or the open source community that has had Microsoft running scared is immaterial. The point is that the DMCA, supported by this court ruling, prevents that sort of person from doing anything that's not sanctioned.

<http://www.apple.com/thinkdifferent/ [apple.com] >

Report as a Journalist -- A third defense that Eric Corley's lawyers offered was that posting DeCSS was protected by the First Amendment's protection of the press, and by the First Amendment in general. It took the judge significantly longer to dispose of this defense, since free speech issues are notoriously tricky, but in the end, he concluded that the speech in this case is content-neutral due to the functional nature of the DeCSS code. He then went on to note that regulation of content-neutral speech is acceptable if it advances the government's interests and that preventing the copying of digital works is a government interest due to the existence of the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution and the importance to the U.S. economy of exporting copyrighted materials.

If you haven't looked at the Constitution recently, the Copyright Clause reads, To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Personally, I come down on the side of copyright existing to benefit society through the progress of science and the useful arts, and only secondarily to give authors and inventors exclusive rights. By my reading, the government interest thus lies in promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, and there's no question that the DMCA eliminates progress.

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit ution.articlei.html [cornell.edu] >

But I digress. The final result of the case was that Eric Corley and 2600 may not post DeCSS on their Web site or knowingly link their Web site to any other site on which DeCSS is posted. The decision was worded carefully so that linking in general would not be affected by the DMCA, but only in cases where those responsible for the link (a) know at the relevant time that the offending material is on the linked-to site, (b) know that it is circumvention technology that may not lawfully be offered, and (c) create or maintain the link for the purpose of disseminating that technology.

In other words, it's acceptable to link to DeCSS if your intent is not to disseminate DeCSS, but merely to report on its availability, a fact I proved to my satisfaction with a trivial Google search on download DeCSS that provided over 17,000 hits, many of them still functional. You can verify this for yourself; just remember that DeCSS is only for Windows.

<http://www.google.com/search?q=download+DeCSS [google.com] >

Here's where Professor Gillespie's argument becomes a bit more speculative. Although the court went no further in this case, he suggested that in any future cases in which the legitimacy of linking was called into question, he felt that the court would include in its deliberation the nature of the publication in question. For example, if the New York Times chose to link to DeCSS or some other technology that violated the DMCA (as in fact the San Jose Mercury News and Wired News have, in making the point that a ban on linking is seriously problematic), he felt that the court would have little trouble accepting the journalistic intent of the link. On the other hand, if some silly little electronic newsletter aimed at Macintosh and Internet users were to perform the same action, he was concerned that it would be more difficult to make the same defense. And if TidBITS wouldn't match up to the journalistic level of the New York Times in the eyes of a theoretical court, what about a blogger?

The end result would be that this court's interpretation of the DMCA could have the same effect of stabilizing the large news organizations in favor of the small newsletters and bloggers who are redefining what journalism means in today's Internet-enabled world. Speaking as someone who has done some of that redefining over the last 12 years, that worries me.

Regime of Arrangement -- In the end, Professor Gillespie argues that the true power of the DMCA is not so much related to its effect on copyright but these ways it weaves established organizations like large manufacturing corporations, research universities, and media conglomerates into what Professor Gillespie calls a regime of arrangement.

Don't assume that these established institutions are necessarily being co-opted against their will. Apple's Think Different campaign reads like a manifesto for the very people who are disenfranchised under this regime of arrangement, and yet Apple is a member of the DVD CCA, and, obviously, a licensee of CSS for the DVD hardware and software that comes with the Mac. The open source community has proved the power of teams of independent programmers as an alternative to the traditional software development model, not to mention the ivory towers of research institutions. Distance education hints at the decline of the traditional university, and entrenched media organizations have struggled for years with the way the Internet lets anyone be a publisher.

If there's one theme we take into the 21st century, it's decentralization, and you can see it everywhere. The PC overtaking the mainframe, Napster changing the face of music distribution despite the recording industry's best efforts, DeCSS causing the movie studios conniptions, Linux successfully challenging the mighty Microsoft's server operating systems, even the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - all are examples of the power of decentralization and the ever-increasing clash between these forces of decentralization and the centralized power structures that control everything about our world. I have no answers here, but I'd note that despite the awesome power of both systems, I'm seeing the forces of decentralization making significant inroads.

What Can We Do? I've been attending a number of talks on copyright and intellectual property issues at Cornell over the last year. Almost without exception, the talks are warnings of dark times ahead (obviously, most are slanted toward the academic and library worlds), but at the same time, none have offered any suggestions for how we can work to reverse the efforts on the part of the Content Cartel to lock up our cultural heritage and stifle innovation for the future.

At a recent talk by Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), I chatted with Alan afterwards about this problem, and he agreed it was a concern, but had no silver bullet to prevent the hordes of well-funded Content Cartel lobbyists from having their way with our elected representatives. I, too, have trouble knowing what will be effective, but I offer these possibilities.

<http://www.cdt.org/ [cdt.org] >

  • Spread the word to everyone you know. In most cases, the best argument is probably that the entire situation is a move on the part of big business to make everyone buy new consumer electronics and new copies of all of their content. If the Content Cartel gets their way, it will cost you. In some situations, making the intellectual commons argument - that our culture needs access to its cultural heritage to grow - can be effective, though it's generally too abstract. Try to avoid sounding like a zealot (I know it's hard: every time I hear of the latest attempt on the part of these companies to criminalize their customers, it makes me want to spit.)

  • Support civil liberties organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and CDT that are working to protect our rights. As you'll see in the PayBITS block at the end of this article, I plan to donate all the proceeds from this article to the EFF to help do my part.

<http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] >

  • Between 19-Nov-02 and 18-Dec-02, write to the Library of Congress with any evidence you can provide on whether non-infringing uses of certain types of copyrighted materials are likely to be adversely affected by the DMCA's anti-circumvention mechanisms. To get an idea of what they're looking for, I highly recommend reading Dan Bricklin's Copy Protection Robs the Future essay, in which he talks about his efforts to post an original copy of VisiCalc, the ground-breaking spreadsheet program he created.

<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/comment_forms/ [copyright.gov] >
<http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm [bricklin.com] >

  • Express your concerns to your elected representatives whenever appropriate. EFF maintains an action center that makes it extremely easy to write your appropriate representatives. While you're at it, you might ask how it is that an entire industry is allowed to create a restrictive technology like CSS, require highly limiting contracts, and influence legislation (the DMCA). One of the industry witnesses in the Corley case testified that this three-pronged approach was exactly what the movie studios aimed at creating. Ironically, given that the end goal is a trusted system, this sounds a whole lot like the legal definition of a trust, which is a combination of corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout an industry.

<http://action.eff.org/ [eff.org] >

I have to admit, I'm worried that none of this will be enough. The Content Cartel has the aura of celebrity on their side - they're protecting the rock stars and movie stars who sit at the pinnacle of today's society. They're the cool kids, whereas the people who campaign for civil liberties are often considered dull and overly earnest. My main ray of hope is that the reason most of the software industry voluntarily gave up copy protection technologies - primarily that consumers hated copy protection - will rise again, but unless we speak out now, all of our content may be locked up in a trusted system protected by the DMCA.

This is just stupid (1, Interesting)

headbulb (534102) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706035)

The DMCA should take a hint and get off everyones back.

I was watching the making of star wars making of type shows and there were mac's on pretty much every workstation. Now do they really want to lock down a platform that is used to create the movies (media), seems to me that that would reduce the amount of programs to use to create the content.

Is that what they really want.

Now I didn't get to read the article so I may be wrong. (it was slashdoted)

Dan

Re:This is just stupid (5, Funny)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706196)

You do know the DMCA is a law and not an organisation, do you not?

huh? (2)

MoceanWorker (232487) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706052)

what about us PC users?

PC, Apple, SPARC, Alpha, whatever...

Creations are creations..

and the DMCA must be abolished!!

DMCA bad for Apple users? (5, Insightful)

hype7 (239530) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706074)

bah! It's not about bad for Apple users. It's bad for everyone.

What I find funny is how the author thinks that because Apple doesn't have a DMCA-capable OS, that is going to miss out on the "next big thing". I don't know about everyone else, but I am actively encouraged by Apple's stance. Yes, "don't steal music", but no, don't fsck users simply to placate the gorillas in the MPAA and RIAA. Until a system comes along that lets people who have legitimately bought CDs to "rip mix burn", Apple are firmly on the side of the users. Unlike the MPAA and RIAA, they give a shit about their customers.

Anyway, as a result of MS's stance, I look forward to the article about "how the DMCA is bad for windows users".

Also, now is as good a time as any - get your ass over to the Copyright Office [copyright.gov] and let them know how the DMCA has legitimately infringed on your fair use rights. They've just opened up to submissions: "The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention"

-- james

Think different, sahib (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706093)

To paraphrase a certain barefoot fasting Indian fellow, a few hundred DMCAmen cannot rule one hundred million users who do not wish to cooperate.

Re:Think different, sahib (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706434)

Tell that to China, :-/

In other DMCA news... (5, Interesting)

jerrytcow (66962) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706125)

There's a thread [fatwallet.com] on fatwallet.com discussing how both walmart and target used DMCA to force the site to remove information about upcoming sales.

There were two threads discussing next week's black friday (day after thanksgiving) sales at walmart [fatwallet.com] and target [fatwallet.com] . Since these sales haven't been advertised yet, apparently the companies thought discussing them violated the DMCA.

In other news (4, Funny)

af_robot (553885) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706139)

Smoking is bad for Apple Users too!

TidBits, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706165)

Looks like that's what the server's been slashdotted into...

CGI Problem (-1, Offtopic)

Xlr8r (456404) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706171)

Sorry, haven't been on \. for awhile and can't remember where to post qestions... Having a problem w/ CGI (sort of starting new w/ cgi's). At the top of each page you need to put in #!/usr/bin/perl now do you actually type that, or do you type the user name and cgi-bin... wtf do you really type basically? Thanks for n e help upfront.

OT: related links (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706174)

did any one notice the first text link in the "related links" box that usually contains information important to the story?

not this one. it's a link for an advertisement, but quite well hidden right in there with the cotent.

sneaky slashdot. very sneaky. are we going to see these text ads inserted in the middle of our story submissions or comments soon? keywording story topcis are we?

DMCA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706204)

Fuck yeah! DMCA is for the working class, pissed off, real man. Not some Apple using faggot with his boss's dick up his ass. I'm 30lbs overweight, with the fuckin' hairiest ass crack this side of a gorilla. I've got a 10 inch bone that wont quit. My wife loves it, and so does yours. I jackhammer streets all day, and jackhammer cunt all night.

Need to Look at *All* Users (5, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706283)

Accurate reporting requires looking at all the facts. To get the complete story, we need to look at the whole picture, not just Apple users. In order to promote a more informed discussion, I'm posting the comprehensive data showing the DMCA's impact on the users of a wide variety of systems:

  • Apple users (Mac): bad
  • Apple ][ users: poor
  • PC users (386): average
  • PC users (Pentium): bad
  • Amiga users: fair
  • Sun users: poor
  • C-64 users: good
  • VAX users: bad
  • PC users (8086): bad
  • PC users (286): poor
  • Alpha users: poor
  • SGI users: undetermined
  • PDP-11 users: bad
  • AS-400 users: not applicable
  • S/390 users: poor
  • PC-jr users: excellent
  • DEC Rainbow users: average
  • PC users (486): not available
  • Sinclair ZX80 users: nil
  • Osbourne users: marginal
  • Cray users: average
  • Apollo users: bad
  • Next users: poor
  • TRS-80 users: very good
  • Data Genereal users: to be determined
  • Amdahl users: 'ERROR 43: invalid row requ..'
  • Unisys users: unknown

As you can see, the actual results are all over the map. Focusing only on Apple users gives you a biased view of the issue.

Re:Need to Look at *All* Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4706594)

Marginal? I came up as marginal? WTF does that mean!?

you think DMCA is bad? (-1, Flamebait)

Minn_Kota_Marine (621197) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706441)

Sure the DMCA is bad for Apple users, but is it really that much worse for them than those 1-button mice?

I'm being completely serious. I showed a Mac user a wheel mouse the other day and they could not believe how much faster they could work (and wheel mice have been common for about 5 years now).

Don't all Mac users have bigger things to worry about?

DMCA vs. DeCSS (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 11 years ago | (#4706512)

This article went on for ages about the DMCA vs DeCSS. I fail to understand how the DMCA is even relevant. The DMCA is a US law, whilst DeCSS was apparently developed and released outside the US. How does the DMCA apply to a Norwegian teenage?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>